Researcher vulnerability in doing collaborative autoethnography: moving to a post-qualitative stance

Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz Abstract: As educational researchers, we hold monthly meetings to discuss our methodological and personal feelings and uncertainties while transitioning from a qualitative to a post-qualitative stance, which involved using artistic/cartographic methods. This shift affected us, unveiling our professional and personal vulnerability. In an exercise of collaborative autoethnography, in this text we describe what it meant for us to engage in this type of study and how the resulting shift in our academic logic, which was originally grounded in more traditional orthodoxies, made us vulnerable and uncomfortable, thus allowing a more ethical investigation. Through these processes we reveal the effect of a research process that placed us in an uncomfortable situation, which in turn allowed new questions to emerge. Finally, we reclaim the need to make not only these professional tensions public but perhaps our failures as well. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. The Influence of an Ever-Changing World and Transformation in Educational Research 3. The Post-Qualitative Turn in Educational Research 3.1 Challenges and tensions in the adoption of a post-qualitative stance 3.2 Adopting CAE to reflect on our research/teaching itineraries 4. Doing CAE 4.1 Room 1: Estibaliz 4.2 Room 2: José Miguel 4.3 Room 3: Asunción 5. Living Room: Where Has the Post-Qualitative Stance Taken Us? 6. Final Reflections Acknowledgments References Authors Citation 1. Introduction For more than twenty years, the qualitative model has been our reference in our educational research endeavors and our work with present and future teachers. This model, based mainly on student teachers' and teachers' ethnographic narratives of when, where and how they learned their profession, has allowed us to shed light onto the intricacies of developing a teaching identity (CORREA GOROSPE, MARTÍNEZ-ARBELAIZ & ABERASTURI-APRAIZ, 2015; CORREA GOROSPE, MARTÍNEZ-ARBELAIZ & FERNÁNDEZ-OLASKOAGA, 2018; CORREA GOROSPE, MARTÍNEZ-ARBELAIZ & GUTIERREZ, 2014). However, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627) Volume 21, No. 3, Art. 8 September 2020 Key words: teacher education; ethical research; educational research; collaborative autoethnography; writing as a method of inquiry; reflexivity FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance lately, and from different angles, we started feeling that this model was not satisfying our needs and that we were entering into an epistemological as well as a methodological crisis. We had not challenged the standard way of doing research since we were in graduate school, where by standard we mean the process of formulating one or several research questions, gathering data from teachers or student teachers, analyzing those data and coming up with results, and writing a discussion and a conclusion. At some point this packaged format felt like a straitjacket that our research project had to fit into and which did not afford the detail and nuance that we wanted to achieve with our inquiries. [1] After reading, discussing, and finally digesting the postmodern concepts that DELEUZE and GUATTARI (1988 [1980]) developed in their text "A Thousand Plateaus," we were bold enough to invite concepts like rhizome to dialogue with our educational research. We were inspired by the book by JACKSON and MAZZEI (2012) in which they did precisely that: they distilled the main concepts of philosophers such as DERRIDA, FOUCAULT, BARAD and made their theories applicable to different educational scenarios. The seed of a radical change in our positioning toward research was planted in our heads. We were eager to find out more about this radically different form of doing research, inspired by the arts and sustained by philosophical bases that could be labeled as post-human, new materialisms, etc. The post-qualitative turn was slowly but steadily occurring in our research group. [2] Once thing we did not anticipate, however, was that this turn was going to have consequences on our overall teaching, researching and personal lives. The article that follows can be viewed as an exercise in the reflexivity of discomfort (PILLOW, 2003) that is framed as collaborative autoethnography (CAE) but, crucially, from a post-qualitative stance. We reflect in a shared manner on a research project that shifted from a qualitative to a post-qualitative positioning. While we were modifying the theoretical bases of our research, we felt we needed to exchange our thoughts and feelings about what was going on. In an exercise in CAE, we focus on how this change has affected us, which has allowed us to challenge the research praxis that we had adopted up to this point. [3] We focus on reflexivity of discomfort because we consider it to be a strategy for coping with not knowing, and with the uncertainty of not knowing where we were heading. We echo PILLOW's use of "uncomfortable reflexivity—a reflexivity that seeks to know while at the same time situates this knowing as tenuous" (2003, p.188). In this article, we try to reveal what is not shown in most other universityrelated academic reports, namely our discomfort and vulnerability when we face an uncertain situation, where we do not know. In other words, with this text, although we likely do not provide a solution to the research problem, we do propose that these shared reflections, which are seldom published, are in fact a very relevant part of the whole research process, which is in line with what RUSSELL and KELLY (2002) previously proposed in a qualitative framework. [4] This article comes out of a larger, ongoing research project that studied how eleven early childhood educators and eleven primary school teachers learned. FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance The project was participative and collaborative (MANNAY, 2017 [2015]), and we used artistic methods to engage participants' data rather than to merely collect data about them. MANNAY (p.149) argued that educational researchers should pay more attention to data production, which implies more in-depth involvement with logical and practical considerations and ethics. Paying close attention to our data was the part of the research process that generated the most tension, as will be seen later in our discussion, and it compelled us to resort to CAE to seek "truths" from the dialog. We acknowledge that we started our research from our privileged position as middle class academics. None of us was in an untenured position, which gave us the freedom to challenge well established educational research methods but did not exempt us from experiencing circumstances that contributed to our professional vulnerability. At the same time, we can be considered "scholars in the periphery" (GONZÁLEZ Y GONZÁLEZ & LINCOLN, 2006, §22; see also HSIUNG, 2012), participants in a globalized model of the neoliberal, competitive university, which is increasingly obsessed with quantitative evaluation of excellence in terms of distinctions and publications and linked to economic incentives. Although for this study we read numerous sources in Spanish, as our reference list evidences, publishing in English helps minimize the core-periphery divide in (post-)qualitative research, but at extra cost and effort on our part; despite one of us being a returnee after many years in the US, we still require the help of a professional translator and editor to publish our work. In addition, the three of us are in the middle of our careers, direct theses and have ample experience with educational research. Two of us (JMC and EAA) come from the School of Education and the third author (AM) works for a university consortium. Our triad is truly transdisciplinary, with our individual and joint contributions spanning a range of fields, from arts education to educational technology to linguistics. In this text, we share how we became aware of the tensions and difficulties incumbent in the changes in our theoretical and methodological bases. Our aim is to portray what we experienced as we worked on a research project that evolved toward a post-qualitative stance and how adopting new research perspectives affected our research trajectories. [5] As we carried out our research on how teachers learn, we saw that CAE had great potential in studying researchers' lives, professional development and empowerment and that it could help us as we tackled the post-qualitative turn and transited though an inevitable landscape of vulnerability. Here we mean vulnerability in two senses. The first is the vulnerability of the scholars whose dissatisfaction with academic culture places them in a changing and complex world and who question the way academics do research; the second is the vulnerability we feel as we transition toward the other research positionings that CAE invites us to inhabit and that demands that we accept new risks as we transform our role as researcher. [6] We begin this article by describing the conditions of the constantly changing world that we live in and how they influence our research (Section 2), and we then detail our post-qualitative turn (Section 3). After that, we adopt a more narrative style and use the metaphor of the room, inspired by Virginia WOOLF, in order to tell the story of the process of inquiry we undertook using CAE (Section FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance 4). We chose this metaphor as a way to transmit the idea of inhabiting research, something that affects us and matters to us. The room was where our exercise in honesty and reflexivity took place, where we exposed our limits and vulnerabilities when doing research in education. Each of us had our own room, where we individually meditated and engaged in self-reflection. But we also created a living room (Section 5), a space where we gathered together and collaborated, sharing our experiences, life stories, knowledge, discoveries and conclusions. It was the space we used to exchange and negotiate meaning, tasks that are essential in keeping a research group alive. We close our account by presenting our conclusions (Section 6), where we relate the questions that guided our inquiry with the findings that came out of this experience. [7] 2. The Influence of an Ever-Changing World and Transformation in Educational Research The acronym "VUCA" stands for volatility (rapidly changing contexts and conditions), uncertainty (missing information that is critical to problem-solving), complexity (multiple factors that are difficult to categorize or control), and ambiguity (vague data that are subject to multiple interpretations) (REEVES & REEVES, 2015, p.26). Our world is volatile and full of accelerated change, and uncertainty has become part of contemporary life (EDWARDS, RANSON & STRAIN, 2002), making it impossible to know what will happen tomorrow. Our world is complex; any area is made up of multiple connections, configurations, interpretations, and meanings. And there is ambiguity; as the pace of change increases, so does the amount of time that we need to analyze legitimate knowledge. This has resulted in change and an acceleration in the production and distribution of knowledge, in the expectations and demands made on schools and teachers, and in the increase in the complexity and diversity of educational contexts. The volatility of information, the uncertainty about the future and the complexity of education significantly increase the ambiguity of teaching conditions. Change in education is a constant rather than an isolated event (DAY, HARRIS, HADFIELD, TOLLEY & BERESFORD, 2000; FULLAN, 1997; HARGREAVES, EARL & MOORE, 2001 [2000]; LOVELESS & ELLIS, 2001), and adapting to change has become part of policy agendas, including educational policy agendas. While we have made advances in reflecting upon and discussing the effects that a constantly changing VUCA world and its underlying factors have on teacher training and education, there has been little reflection on how these aspects influence research on education, researchers, and the knowledge produced. The continual and unpredictable mutation that occurs when the very idea of knowledge—as well as its production, relationship, and representation—is transformed challenges current research methodologies and strategies in a context in which, as BRAIDOTTI (2014, p.163) noted, "old power relations are not only confirmed but in many ways exacerbated in the new geopolitical context." [8] Knowledge is no longer conceived of as something that is durable; rather it is something that is changing and unpredictable (GIBBONS et al., 1994). The spectacular evolution of science and technology means that knowledge is produced at dizzying speeds. Rapidity, another important feature of the current FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance context, renders knowing, knowledge and information ephemeral and volatile. Society is changing so rapidly that it is continually challenging the veracity and relevance of knowledge, where even the best-informed people are always taken by surprise (BAUMAN, 2007 [2005]). In this context of fleetingness, all areas of life—ideology, emotion, sexuality, family, culture and politics—are surrounded by instability and fugacity. [9] Thanks to the development of critical perspectives toward traditional paradigms, as scholars, our relationship with knowledge has been transformed, and as such we should also question its production status. Scientific knowledge is no longer something that is neutral, objective or unquestionable from an ethical and moral point of view; it is now subject to critical scrutiny in terms of its relationship to power, leading to new ideas about participation, communication, gender and the visibility of the participants themselves. [10] New ways of generating, representing and disseminating knowledge have abandoned the traditional strategies and means. This transformation of knowledge moves researchers away from the tried-and-true strategies for learning in a stable and certain world and requires new creative approaches to educational research in a context of ongoing change. BRAIDOTTI (2019, p.52) summarized these ideas in her framework for the critical posthumanities, which "provides a theoretical grounding for the emergence of the critical posthumanities as a supra-disciplinary, rhizomatic field of contemporary knowledge production that is contiguous with, but not identical to, the epistemic accelerationism of cognitive capitalism." She argued that there is a proliferation of transdisciplinary discourses and fields. In this article, we echo these post-human times that BRAIDOTTI vividly described, and against this background, we narrate our collaborative, transdisciplinary movements. [11] In our case this meant sharing our achievements, tensions, fears and limitations in the maelstrom we were immersed in, which we portrayed as a VUCA world that affected us personally and professionally. We shared our own significant experiences and life stories that were linked to the issue that we are studying within the complicated world of the academy and the research culture that we operated in. Various studies using CAE have highlighted the value this approach has for participants, as it is an opportunity to foster deeper learning about the issues and themselves through the collective and collaborative exploration of their own selves, their colleges and their contexts. There is a dual sense in how vulnerability affects us as researchers. [12] On one hand, the focus of our study is researcher vulnerability in the face of the professional risks that are associated with the post-qualitative turn that we are experiencing as qualitative researchers from different disciplines in a VUCA world, a historic moment in which the act of generating, connecting and presenting knowledge is undergoing ongoing, accelerated and profound change. On the other hand, we researchers who participate in CAE face personal vulnerability, as it demands that we share with our co-researchers our own life stories, perspectives and meaningful details from our experiences. This risk is FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance present when we conduct research with co-equals or with others where the power differential allows a good relationship to be created among the participants, and this offers us an opportunity to review our praxis and to make sense of our individual and collective experiences and the issues that come to light with the support of our colleagues, exposing ourselves in a safe environment (HERNÁNDEZ, CHANG & NGUNJIRI, 2017; NGUNJIRI, 2014). [13] 3. The Post-Qualitative Turn in Educational Research While numerous motives support this new orientation toward research, the more important ones are a critical attitude toward ways of doing research and creating knowledge, the importance that the institutional structure gives to research and the researcher in the generation of knowledge, and the post-qualitative proximity to arts-based research methods. [14] The term post-qualitative covers the research over the past two decades that rethinks the ontology and epistemology that are characteristic of humanist qualitative methodology (LATHER & ST. PIERRE, 2013) and which explores and attempts to re-imagine new ethical and onto-epistemological directions. For ST. PIERRE (2013) and following post-qualitative logic, research is not about revealing truths, voices or meanings or about mechanisms of emancipation, and it is even less about the idea of accumulating knowledge about the "same thing." From the post-qualitative perspective, the ways of knowing and representing are called into question in order to open up spaces for study, challenging the very concepts through which we perceive reality and that constitute us as researchers. This creates within the research itself critical spaces that question the real effects of a theory (SPIVAK, 2009 [1983]). [15] A post-qualitative research position is always multifaceted and woven from theoretical diversity, and as such it does not have a single perspective nor does it articulate a single proposal, nor can it be described in an orderly manner in a handbook on research. When our frames of reference disappear and our ideas become disordered, as researchers we feel the need to build new structures of representation in order to accommodate realities that were previously unimaginable. We also problematize certain hegemonic foundations of research practice, which go beyond the traditional arguments in the paradigm wars (GAGE, 1989) and call into question notions such as study design, data collection and representation, the meaning of interviews, observation, participation, etc. All of these emerge from the hegemonic and unchallenged foundations that have guided the production of knowledge in social and education research in recent decades. This alternative brings with it uncertainty, the unknown, and openness as a condition and form of knowledge. It leads to understanding, dislodging and undertaking research as a rhizome (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 1988 [1980]) that moves in ever-changing directions, without beginning or end and causing frequent disorientation. Research is interpreted and narrated as an entanglement of dynamics, relationships and movements that relocate and displace researchers as well. [16] FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance JACKSON and MAZZEI (2012) contended that post-qualitative research tries to focus attention on the areas that traditional research does not notice, namely, what is new or what is not known, revealing concepts that should be re-thought through the research process. Research ceases being an accumulation of knowledge about what is known and instead presents a different perspective from which to focus on what we, as researchers in education, do not know (ROGOFF, 2007 [2006]) about teacher learning and the implications for education and the challenges to social change. [17] As researchers and university faculty, we have been affected by the slow threat to qualitative research and the way that its potential for change has been diluted in the face of quantitative perspectives (ST. PIERRE, 2006). At the same time, we have been impacted by the research space that is opened by the postqualitative perspective that continuously adapts to the most "post" or "new new" (LATHER & ST. PIERRE, 2013, p.629) and to the most critical emerging perspectives (GREENE, 2013). The appearance of this post-qualitative perspective is related to the push from new materialisms, new empiricisms (ST. PIERRE, JACKSON & MAZZEI, 2016) and post-humanism (BRAIDOTTI, 2014, 2015 [2013]), which makes it possible to open spaces that are creative and divergent and that challenge the very concepts used to read reality and that constitute us as educational researchers, thereby questioning the legitimacy of knowledge generated within the institutional structure. Our having adopted a post-qualitative stance places us at the margins of academic discourse and allows us to do what is not feasible from within the core of institutions of learning and knowledge. This attitude of resistance to institutionalization affects the questions that guide researchers toward what is not known; toward the theoretical frameworks that are established, their relationship with data, the procedures used for analysis (coding, grouping), the concept of voice and subject, and the very practice of research and its links with neoliberal academic practices. Furthermore, by employing artistic methods in educational research we were able to incorporate the liminal, the bodily and the sensory features that arts-based research demands, as such methods encouraged us to change the traditional ways of creating and disseminating knowledge. In transcending the limits of the dominant logic of academia, we feel better able re-imagine research and our relationship with knowledge. [18] In a previous article (CORREA GOROSPE, ABERASTURI & BELATEGI, 2017) we discussed the epistemic proximity of the post-qualitative movement and artsbased research, which share an openness to more creative ways of relating to one another and representing knowledge (COLEMAN, 2017). The use of artistic and visual methods and post-qualitative positioning overlap in various ways. One is that both transform the research model by breaking down linearity to a certain extent and creating a rhizomatic framework made up of relations and processes (LATHER & ST. PIERRE, 2013), which invites researchers to imagine data analysis that escapes the banality of the coding and categorization that characterizes conventional qualitative research. Another point of overlap is that post-qualitative research echoes artistic methods in its critique of representational logic. Arts-based research makes it possible to go beyond traditional views and FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance representations of society and see things differently (BARONE & EISNER, 2012), and it avoids the efforts of language to be the reference of the negotiated, literal and real-world (ELLSWORTH, 2005 [1997]). Furthermore, arts-based research and the post-qualitative perspective both recognize the role played by new sensory ways to connect with the world, accept the role of the body and are open to other forms of knowledge and perception (LEYS, 2011). Lastly, both artsbased research and post-qualitative research promote other participation processes by questioning power relations and the legitimacy of knowledge that is produced in an institutional framework. [19] Adopting arts-based research methods allowed us to go beyond the horizon of humanist qualitative research and create the circumstances for producing knowledge and understanding through the process of artistic inquiry (FELS & IRWIN, 2008). We sought to direct our questions and inquiry toward that which is not known or acknowledged in the traditional literature on teacher learning and toward finding alternatives that respond to the challenges that schools and teachers face. This approach led us to call into question our own research practices, from the role of collected data to rethinking the ways in which researchers participate in and commit to the research itself. [20] As a developing methodology and because of the onto-epistemology and ethics that underpin it, post-qualitative research does not come to a neat close; instead it constantly evolves and leads to different ways of thinking, feeling and acting. Post-qualitative research invites educational researchers to think differently about data and how we analyze them, understanding that they do not exist independently of us. It involves reimaging data analysis such that it moves beyond the mere coding and categorizing that characterizes conventional qualitative research (JACKSON & MAZZEI, 2012). As ST. PIERRE noted in an interview, "Qualitative methodology was invented in the 1970s and 1980s as a critique of positivist social science, but we've structured, formalized, and normalized it so that most studies look the same. The 'process' is the same: identify a research question, design a study, interview, observe, analyze data, and write it up. We can just drop a researcher down into that pre-given process and they know what to do, and we can pretty much predict what will come out. In this way, qualitative methodology has become predictive, like positivist social science" (GUTTORM, HOHTI & PAAKKARI, 2015, p.16). [21] As a result, the whole idea of a research method, via which data is handled in accordance with specific, pre-established guidelines and processes, represents an attempt to systematize and formalize. And perhaps it is a way to semi-control the whole research process, which could be a relief for disciplines that are trying to legitimize themselves as science and still recognize the value of qualitative work. Within this post-qualitative framework, we understand CAE as a continuation of the reflection process, which is never faultless or finished. It is an ongoing process of visibilizing what happens during research, an act that is usually not recounted in research articles. [22] FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance 3.1 Challenges and tensions in the adoption of a post-qualitative stance One of the tensions that we experienced when beginning our research was related to methodology and data. We agreed to work from a post-qualitative perspective and use artistic methods. To create knowledge via an artistic method, we invited our 22 teachers to two cartography workshops, which were photographed and audio and video recorded. We also asked the teacher-creators for narratives, and we observed them at their schools. Given our unfamiliarity with artistic and visual products and the strangeness they evoked in us (GUREVITCH, 1998), our inclination was to classify, categorize, sort, and apply the same approaches that we had taken in previous studies. We were not able to move beyond the confines of the approaches that we had learned and internalized throughout the years. [23] The sole previous experience that we had with artistic methods was the production of our cartography. Before working with the 22 teachers and organizing workshops as part of their professional development, we thought that we had to experience the process of using visual language to express our learning lives. These cartographies summarized how we as teacher educators and educational researchers learned and developed our teaching identity. This crucial step contributed to keeping the research process ethical since we were going through a reflexive loop that was similar to what our teachers were experiencing. The critical difference is that the students' reflexive process was more related to self-awareness and acknowledgment of how they had learned and how they had constructed knowledge, whereas in our case the discomforting reflexive act sought messy knowledge (PILLOW, 2003). [24] In addition, when designing and talking about our own cartographies, we were engaged in an exercise of reflexivity. According to BERGER (2015), "reflexivity is commonly viewed as the process of a continual internal dialog and critical selfevaluation of researcher's positionality as well as active acknowledgment and explicit recognition that this position may affect the research process and outcome" (p.220). In order to ask teachers to reflect on their own praxis and learning itineraries, we first had to clarify our own position regarding the research process itself. We were not surprised to see that the production of our cartographies made the two of us that did not have any experience in the arts feel insecure and uncomfortable. Thus, our process of creating cartographies and thereby engaging with arts-based research can be seen as a form of practice that connected some of us with the "reflexivities of discomfort" (PILLOW, 2003, p.188). PILLOW described reflexivity as "a methodological tool interruptive of practices of gathering data as 'truths' into existing 'folds of the known'" (p.192). However, she continued to view reflexivity as a way of creating knowledge without giving up the representational function of research, like previous researchers in a postmodern frame (RUSSELL & KELLY, 2002). [25] FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance 4.3 Room 3: Asunción My first response to this proposal was to arrange my cartography in terms of my physical movements: that is, I tried to represent my travels and the places I've lived in scenarios and landscapes, cutting out and pasting maps of Europe and the different states in the United States where I had lived, studied and worked. I thought that in making reference to my physical movements, I was connected with my "mental deployments." But can we equate traveling with learning? My recent studies of narratives written by Americans who come to Spain to study language and culture highlight how uncomfortable we are with the smells, tastes, different looks and of course the sounds of a language that we are not accustomed to. How do we represent the accumulation of physical and fully felt personified sensations that we perceive when we travel within a foreign environment? My work so far has consisted of asking for a composition in which students, through words, reflect upon their feelings and the changes to their identity due to moving to another place and using a different language. However, as KRESS (2010, p.79) pointed out, "[t]he introduction of the concepts of mode and multimodality produces a challenge to hitherto settled notions of language. After all, if all modes are merely a kind of duplication of meanings already made in, say, speech or writing—may be for relatively marginal reasons such as 'illustration' or for aesthetic reasons such as 'ornamentation'—or whether they are 'full meanings', always quite distinct from other modes. If the latter is the case, then 'language' has to be seen in a new light: no longer as central and dominant, fully capable of expressing all meanings, but as one means among others for making meaning, each of them specific. This amounts to a profound reorientation." [51] Thus, my cartography was merely a way to represent my journeys through a medium that is as lacking in multimodality as a cutout from a map. Just after I had finished my cartography, I came across the controversial article by SEFTONGREEN (2017) in which he asserted that all the metaphors for learning, such as "journey" and "trajectory" (p.112) maybe a simplification, although that does not mean that learning is not quantifiable or observable. [52] Thinking of my travels as representations of my learning did not add anything new to what was already obvious: Are my nomadic transitions reflections of my learning, or was I simply solving my "problem" of explaining cartography by identifying it with a physical movement rather than thinking of it as something that is intangible, invisible or difficult to identify, which happens to everyone when they learn something? What have I learned from all this research? It is an exercise in jumping without a safety net; it is an exercise of naked honesty. At the moment there are no colleagues to engage with, there are no sounds to imitate, there are not even any earlier texts to inspire us. Have I really learned something? Have I really given up the word as the principal method of communication/expression? Stripped of the distractions of the journey, of the outside world, we find ourselves forced to look within ourselves for the keys to what it means to learn. [53] FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance From the three reflections that emerged from our individual rooms show, it can be seen that Estibaliz is concerned about teacher education and what an arts-based perspective can contribute; her training in fine arts and itinerary as a teacher trainer led her to focus on those questions. José Miguel, who has 35 years' experience as a teacher educator and researcher, puts the pursuit of his research and his role as a researcher on hold by seeking to resignify other ontoepistemological positions in the wake of critical and creative research practices from a perspective of personal involvement. And Asunción, who comes from linguistics, is interested in representations that go beyond the written word and seeks other strategies for communicating. Because we come from different positions, we consider our meetings in the living room to be very valuable for discussing these differences with an eye on other collaborative approaches to research. [54] 5. Living Room: Where Has the Post-Qualitative Stance Taken Us? Having addressed our research challenges individually from a post-qualitative perspective, we shared the resulting texts in a session of CAE. Among other feelings, at least two of us expressed a sense of vulnerability and uncertainty. An atmosphere of trust was crucial for our mutual support in times of a difficult transition, while we acknowledged that we had the feeling of stepping into very uncertain territory. It was not only our research in education that was going through those metamorphoses but, as we explain in this section, our whole teaching and learning constructs were going through relentless transformations. [55] The three of us left our own rooms and gathered in the living room to talk together and reflect on our research process. We wanted to address the second research question: Where has the post-qualitative stance taken us? When researchers work from certainty and from paths defined by a methodology, researcher meetings should occur during the entire research process and penetrate the researchers themselves, giving rise to a number of mutually negotiated key concepts that each researcher may subsequently relate to their lived process, revealing what the concepts have allowed them to think. Our meeting in the living room is an example of making visible the need for these conversations among researchers and the wealth of ideas that come from them. [56] Estibaliz (E): The idea of social change in this study worries me. Research can propose changes, but what happens if we accept that the research question shifts focus toward us and our transformation as researchers and teacher trainers? Doesn't this drift in research reveal a situation that we didn't foresee and that moves us toward ourselves, calling into question research epistemology and initial education for teachers? Isn't this in itself a social change? Won't we be discovering other ways of relating pedagogically with teachers, making it possible for us to change together? [57] Asunción (A): The cartographies can bring about change, although for social change we probably need to walk down the path together. At any rate, a similar process happens in linguistic systems. Changes are not perceptible because FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance although language changes in each generation, we still understand each other. [58] E: Our researcher meetings and the readings that we're sharing are helping me understand the process and the changes better. Right now, in terms of the researchers, I'd say that the biggest challenge is writing from a post-qualitative stance (RICHARDSON & ST. PIERRE, 2005). We began by revealing each researcher's concerns and interests. In linking Estibaliz's interest in arts-based research methods and Asunción's concern for language, RICHARDSON's creative analytic processes are essential and unifying, providing a space where the two researchers' interests can converge. [59] José Miguel (JM): For me, in terms of what you're saying, a key part was the researcher becoming part of what is researchable. A: Are you referring to the idea of reflexivity? JM: Yes, the idea of coming back to oneself and experiencing it as a change, as something that affects you and leaves a mark. By this, I mean that we stop studying a question that is external and we connect ourselves to the research question. [60] E: I agree with the concept of reflexivity as the moment of disruption where I've had to stop and understand. Together we discovered that the researcher becomes part of the research. We realized that from these post-qualitative positions we could question, add to or modify the research questions laid out at the outset and we could even think of ourselves as being part of the research question. [61] A: I agree, though it clashes with a research paradigm that binds us to deadlines and deliverables, which doesn't give us the option to do that. JM: And in terms of that problem, I think that it leads to a reduction of data, but nevertheless a post-qualitative study opens us up to the possibility of staying involved and being able to expand the research question in multiple directions. A: In listening to what you're both saying, I think that we're talking about "inhabiting" the study, a notion that goes beyond answering the research question. JM: I think the concept of immediacy versus transcendence could be related to this. I connect it to the idea in inhabiting the research, of staying present in the time and place that the research experience takes place. A: Yes, a study that goes on and isn't over with the writing of an article. On the contrary, writing allows us to make sense of and give meaning to the research, to continue formulating new questions and forging new paths. [62] JM: Being in the field has an impact on me and makes me wonder what happens if we stay in the now? What happens if I have to stay and wait for something to FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance happen? Spend time with the teachers and take the time to explore the experience of being a teacher with them? I have been lost in this study, partly due to finding myself faced with artistic research methods, which were previously unknown to me, and partly due to the difficulty of making the research question mine. And in this being lost, writing has supported me and allowed me to give an account of what I have done. From our collaborative dialog, our fears about how to position ourselves emerged and we gradually realized that we only had dialog and writing as our refuge for small certainties. But, as RICHARDSON and ST. PIERRE (2005) proposed, our aim was to do it in a creative way, using the metaphor of the living room. [63] E: Another question that has vexed us quite a lot is the notion of data. Who are we to say what the reality of the Other is? A: In fact, it seems to me that in this study we have not dealt with data as something that is externalized as if it had value in itself and reifies the problem. JM: This study has allowed us to dismantle the simulacrum of research. Also, it's not the case that in our previous studies we were so rigid and we put our ethical principles aside; what happened is that we did not leave any room for vulnerability in what we were dealing with. But from a post-qualitative position, we give ourselves permission to revise and accept that what we took for granted, settled or true can be questioned. [64] E: Working toward a post-qualitative position has been as strange for me as working with artistic methodologies has been for you both. I find that there are many intersections, but I am especially interested in one of the issues that we are trying to address through this article: namely, that the research question is not only what is formulated at the outset and that we accept new research questions as we proceed. This shift to a post-qualitative approach presented us with a new challenge, which was to speak about ourselves without appropriating or resignifying what others told us. In order to make sense of this, we used the idea of accompanying, just as is done in an art gallery, and to that end, we made our cartographies as explained in Section 3.1. Examining data in light of what it makes us think instead of interpreting the other was difficult for us. The discussions and debates around research were intense. [65] A: Do you remember the first paper where we started to talk about feelings and emotions? And the rejection that got from the others in our research group? JM: The transition that we're going through as researchers is causing us to upset the system and we've perceived that the methodologies used in social science need another approach. A: Along those lines, it's important to consider that the world is also changing and this is affecting research processes. It's difficult to reconcile results and package knowledge that's expanding in different directions thanks to new technologies. FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance Reality continues to change and it's being affected by important problems in politics, migration, ecology, environment, etc. JM: It's a world with new problems and a new need to address them from diverse perspectives. Still, as researchers, we play a role that subordinates us and makes us docile, which doesn't bring about social change and that tends to accept any philosophy. Upsetting the research paradigm has helped me understand how we're affected by the subordination that academia expects from us. [66] A: Given this situation, it's true that undertaking research from a post-qualitative position is a risky proposition since we don't know how it will be understood or where it might fit in terms of publication. However, I think that we're addressing the concept of agency (JACKSON & MAZZEI, 2012) by resisting and thinking about what we can do to defend our research position within a system in order to be able to advocate for change. In this meeting, we were able to perceive the tension that we, in our enthusiastic and heated debate about research, were dealing with in confronting a research tradition in Spain that is still anchored in the past and does not offer many opportunities for diffusion and transference for those who stray from more traditional principles. [67] E: Establishing connections with concepts requires another level of development that is laborand time-intensive, which is difficult to do in a commodity system of academic degrees and accreditations. JM: When I think about my trajectory during this second year of research, I've focused on reading and writing, on trying to understand and make sense of research. In every text that we write, we say similar things but add a small contribution each time. And I must admit that I enjoy it and I take greater ownership of my research each time. A: It is true that you need to make your research. [68] JM: Delving into other positions and having a connection with a researcher like E., who comes from the field of Fine Arts, has helped me make this move. I've felt the need to share and experience a dialogued meeting in order to come closer to the familiarity that you have with the artistic model, and that has helped me understand it. [69] A: That is where brokering comes in within a mixed group of researchers from different fields, which is necessary for tackling the research question in all its complexity from different perspectives or views. Sharing this dialog enriches us. By unveiling the above conversation, we seek to place the reader before the position of each researcher, facilitating new connections from our collective encounter. In addition, the uncertainty, the lack of clear certainties, that the researchers worked with can be discerned. The reflections in the individual rooms evolved toward broader concepts, allowing us to connect the drift toward the post-qualitative with writing and creative and artistic practices. The metaphor of FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance the living room helps reveal the processes involved and make the conversation visible; it is a space of encounter, of ups and downs, which becomes delimited through the readings, dialog, and new connections that creative practices offer us. [70] 6. Final Reflections We are now at the end of this text, in which we narrated our research journey, with its dilemmas and tensions, where we have taken on the challenge of writing openly about our research efforts. Our post-qualitative turn has led us to scrutinize the role that theory, data, subject and methodology (along with many other dimensions of research) have traditionally played in our work. This new kind of positioning has led us to explore, using the so-called "post" theories (ST. PIERRE, 2013), the territory of epistemic diversity that we were seeking to address in our work; where diverse theoretical positions co-exist but in logical coherence with a scenario that requires new research approaches (COLEMAN, 2017). The opportunities to imagine research, following JACKSON and MAZZEI (2012), led us to analyze our ethical position of using more inclusive procedures in research in order to make room not only for the voices, viewpoints, and concerns of all research participants but also to pay attention to the limitations we researchers face in a world that is complex and where research practice is continually changing, requiring us to constantly transform and learn. [71] The support provided by CAE has been instrumental in the analysis of our vulnerability as it relates to our analysis of the type of concerns, limitations, and tensions regarding academia and research we experienced while incorporating post-qualitative and artistic perspectives, because CAE has offered us the possibility of maintaining a collaborative relationship with the Other, in this case, our fellow research team members, in order to learn more (with the others) about ourselves (DENZIN, 2016). With regard to the first question that guided our inquiry, we analyzed the vulnerability of researchers denied any vision of reality other than that claimed by Western hegemonic epistemology, which hides its class, cultural, political and gender origins and which has served to justify the actions of the groups that subscribe to them. The post-qualitative turn has led us to revise our research ethics and power relationships, as well as the scientific prejudices that dichotomize knowledge and access to it. It has compelled us to fight against certain widespread stereotypes in educational research that encourage the continued separation of the researcher from that which is researched, perpetuating the systematic search for scientific objectivity. In questioning our academic subordination and accepting our peripheral status and vulnerability as researchers, we have committed ourselves to the process of transforming knowledge by making it situated, corporeal, transitive, based on the relationship between the researcher and the researched, horizontal, dialogic and inclusive. In rendering an account of our processes of resistance, we have reflected on the epistemological colonization (SANTOS, 2017 [2014]) that invalidates all alternative knowledge that falls outside the standards set by hegemonic science, built from the needs of capitalist and colonial domination and the quashing of any other vision of reality. [72] FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance With regard to our second research question, the role that CAE has played in our inquiry has made us more aware of researchers' vulnerability in these times of change and transformation thanks to its deconstructive, democratic and decolonizing practice. It is deconstructive because it elevates the voices of the participants themselves as co-researchers and co-generators of data about their own lived realities and it makes us aware of the implications associated with the use of research approaches, methods and strategies. The practice is democratic in that analyzing and uncovering power differentials made us aware of the power relationships that support certain research practices, thus fostering transformations that are more inclusive and participatory. And the practice is decolonizing in that it has helped us link our experiences and life stories to the structural and systematic problems that deny researchers voice, access, power and privilege. CAE has given us tools for collaboration, thereby fostering empathy and creating a safe space for exchange and connection and supporting our inquiry into the academic, social and cultural context within which we as educational researchers study personal and institutional resistances in light of the ethical and onto-epistemological change that we face in this ever-changing world as well as the interests and motivations to which they respond. [73] With this article we do not aim to present a model; instead, we describe an exercise of CAE in which we moved toward a research position that is still precarious and under construction. We believe that visualizing this transition is an act of honesty that can help other researchers understand their own processes and perhaps apply some of the ideas presented here to their own research. It is not our intention to present a way of doing, but rather we want to show how we are going about addressing our own research question using post-qualitative positions and the personal and collective consequences that they have brought about. [74] In this regard, the biggest challenge was writing, where we used the individual rooms and the living room to create subjectivity, knowledge, and meanings (BRAIDOTTI, 2014, 2019), always keeping our researcher selves present. In addition, we situated our research within a postmodern and VUCA society, accepting the challenge to change our research questions in response to what is happening socially. We experimented with artistic research methods, accepting that the products we have are not data that the researcher collects or handles. We also accepted the immediacy of what occurred and that in moving from here we adopted LINCOLN and GUBA's (2003) concept of reflexivity in order to critically interrogate our research subjectivities. [75] As we stated at the outset, the process is appealing and has awakened our interest in getting closer to post-qualitative discourse. Although we started with different motivations and from different disciplines, we were all interested in assuming a critical attitude toward the ways research is done and how knowledge is generated, represented, and disseminated. We acknowledged the importance that the institutional framework has for research and researchers and the importance of a post-qualitative approach to arts-based research. As teacher educators, we spent too many years looking for other forms of pedagogical FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance relationship in research and teaching, and we advocated work processes that take into account the textures and nuances of the people who work in education, in all their complexity. Taking on researcher vulnerability has been difficult because it required us to adopt a critical awareness of our research subjectivities and accept that conducting research will not allow us to remain disengaged. [76] We have unveiled a research tension that makes us vulnerable as researchers but nevertheless brings us toward a more ethical position in research. We believe that established researchers should be the ones to engage in this way, as we wonder whether a novice researcher could really unveil this tension, given that it would heighten his or her position of vulnerability. In sharing these fractures in research, we are coming closer to a richer and more valuable way of doing research, especially in social and educational contexts, where this kind of encounter is needed. [77] Acknowledgments This article is part of the research project "How Early Childhood and Elementary School Teachers Learn: Implications for Education and Challenges in Facing Social Change," funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain (EDU2015-70912-C2-2-R). We thank Wendy BALDWIN for her careful editing and her sharp intuition to point to parts of the original text that were not clear and could be further improved. Her help was invaluable in arriving at the final form of the article and making it sufficiently comprehensible in English. References Barone, Tom & Eisner, Elliot W. (2012). Arts based research. London: Sage. Bauman, Zygmunt (2007 [2005]). Los retos de la educación en la modernidad líquida [The challenges of education in modernity]. Barcelona: Gedisa. Berger, Roni (2015). Now I see it, now I don't: Researcher's position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234. Braidotti, Rosi (1999). Figuraciones de nomadismo: Identidad europea en una perspectiva crítica [Nomadic figurations: European identity in a critical perspective]. In Paloma de Villota Gil-Escoin (Ed.), Globalización y género [Globalization and gender] (pp.27-46). Madrid: Síntesis. Braidotti, Rosi (2014). Writing as a nomadic subject. Comparative Critical Studies, 11(2-3), 163184. Braidotti, Rosi (2015 [2013]). Lo posthumano [The posthuman]. Barcelona: Gedisa. Braidotti, Rosi (2019). A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, Culture, and Society, 36(6), 31-61, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418771486 [Date of Access: December 11, 2019]. Chang, Heewon; Ngunjiri, Faith Wambura & Hernández, Kathy-Ann C. (2013). Collaborative autoethnography. New York, NY: Routledge. Clandinin, D. Jean & Connelly, F. Michael (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clarke, Matthew (2009). The ethico-politics of teacher identity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(2), 185-200. Coleman, Rebecca (2017). A sensory sociology of the future: Affect, hope and inventive methodologies. The Sociological Review, 65(3), 525-543. FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance Correa Gorospe, Jose Miguel; Aberasturi-Apraiz, Estibaliz & Belategi, Maider (2017). Cartografías sobre cómo aprendemos dentro y fuera de la escuela: Lo que nos ha permitido pensar y aprender este proceso de investigación [Cartographies on how we learn in and out of school: What has allowed us to think and learn this research process]. Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educación, 42, 25-42, http://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/iice/article/view/5352 [Date of Access: May 25, 2020]. Correa Gorospe, José Miguel; Martínez-Arbelaiz, Asunción & Aberasturi-Apraiz, Estibaliz (2015). Post-modern reality shock: Beginning teachers as sojourners in communities of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 66-74. Correa Gorospe, José Miguel; Martínez-Arbelaiz, Asunción & Fernández-Olaskoaga, Lorea (2018). Professional identity and engagement among newly qualified teachers in times of uncertainty. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(1), 26-36. Correa Gorospe, José Miguel; Martínez-Arbelaiz, Asunción & Gutierrez, Luis Pedro (2014). Between the real school and the ideal school: Another step in building a teaching identity. Educational Review, 66(4), 447-464. Day, Christopher; Harris, Alma; Hadfield, Mark; Tolley, Harry & Beresford, John (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Deleuze, Gillies & Guattari, Félix (1988 [1980]). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury. Denzin, Norman K. (2016). Re-leyendo performance, praxis y política [Re-reading performance, praxis and politics]. Investigación Cualitativa, 1(1), 57-78, https://ojs.revistainvestigacioncualitativa.com/index.php/ric/article/view/18/0 [Date of Access: May 25, 2020]. Edwards, Richard; Ranson, Stewart & Strain, Michael (2002). Reflexivity: Towards a theory of lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(6), 525-536. Ellsworth, Elizabeth (2005 [1997]). Posiciones en la enseñanza: Diferencia, pedagogía y el poder de la direccionalidad [Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy and the power of address]. Madrid: Akal. Fels, Lynn & Irwin, Rita L. (2008). Slow fuse: Revisiting arts-based research. Educational Insights, 12(2), http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insights/v12n02/intro/index.html [Date of Access: June 27, 2019]. Fullan, Michael (1997). What's worth fighting for in the principalship?. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gage, Nathaniel L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath. A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10. Gergen, Kenneth (2007). Construccionismo social, aportes para el debate y la práctica [Social constructionism, contributions to debate and practice]. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Psicología, CESO, Ediciones Uniandes. https://www.taosinstitute.net/images/PublicationsFreeBooks/Gergen_construccionismo_social.pdf [Date of Access: May 25, 2019]. Gibbons, Michael; Limoges, Camille; Nowotny, Helga; Schwartzman, Simon; Scott, Peter & Trow, Martin (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. González y González, Elsa M. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2006). Decolonizing qualitative research: Nontraditional reporting forms in the academy. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-7.4.162 [Date of Access: May 25, 2020]. Greene, Jennifer C. (2013). On rhizomes, lines of flight, mangles, and other assemblages. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 749-758. Gurevitch, Zali D. (1998). The other side of dialogue: On making the other strange and the experience of otherness. American Journal of Sociology, 93(5), 1179-1199. Guttorm, Hanna; Hohti, Riikka & Paakkari, Antti (2015). "Do the next thing": An interview with Elizabeth Adams St. Pierre on post-qualitative methodology. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 6(1), 15-22, https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.1421 [Date of Access: May 2, 2020]. FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/ FQS 21(3), Art. 8, Estibaliz Aberasturi-Apraiz, Jose Miguel Correa Gorospe & Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz: Researcher Vulnerability in Doing Collaborative Autoethnography: Moving to a Post-Qualitative Stance Hargreaves, Andy; Earl, Lorna & Moore, Shawn (2001 [2000]). Aprender a cambiar. La enseñanza más allá de las materias y los niveles [Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards]. Barcelona: Octaedro. Hernández, Kathy-Ann C.; Chang, Heewon & Ngunjiri, Faith W (2017). Collaborative autoethnography as multivocal, relational, and democratic research: Opportunities, challenges, and aspirations. Auto/Biography Studies, 32(2), 251-254. Hsiung, Ping-Chun (2012). The globalization of qualitative research: Challenging Anglo-American domination and local hegemonic discourse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Art. 21, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1710 [Date of Access: May 25, 2020]. Íñiguez-Rueda, Lupiciano (2003). La psicología social como crítica: Continuismo, estabilidad y efervescencias tres décadas después de la "crisis" [Social psychology as criticism: Continuity, stability and effervescence three decades after the "crisis"]. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 221-238, https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28437204 [Date of Access: May 25, 2020]. Jackson, Alecia Y. & Mazzei, Lisa A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London: Routledge. Kress, Gunther R. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge Falmer. Lapadat, Judith C. (2017). Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(8), 589-603. Lather, Patti A. (2016). Top ten+list: (Re)Thinking ontology in (post)qualitative research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 125-131. Lather, Patti A. & St. Pierre, Elizabeth A. (2013). Post qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629-633. Leys, Ruth (2011). The turn to affect: A critique. Critical Inquiry, 37(3), 434-472. Lincoln, Yvonna & Guba, Egon G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp.163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Loveless, Avril & Ellis, Viv (2001). ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum: Subject to change. London: Routledge Falmer. Mannay, Dawn (2017 [2015]). Métodos visuales, narrativos y creativos en investigación cualitativa [Visual, narrative and creative research methods: Application, reflection and ethics]. Madrid: Narcea. Ngunjiri, Faith W. (2014). Voice and representation: Collaborative autoethnography as method for studying African leadership and management realities. Presentation, 2nd Biennial Conference of the Africa: Gaborone, Botswana, January 8-11, 2014, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295155090_VOICE_AND_REPRESENTATION_COLLAB ORATIVE_AUTOETHNOGRAPHY_AS_METHOD_FOR_STUDYING_AFRICAN_LEADERSHIP_AN D_MANAGEMENT_REALITIES [Date of Access: May 5, 2020]. Ngunjiri, Faith W. & Hernández, Kathy-Ann C. (2017). Problematizing authentic leadership: A collaborative autoethnography of immigrant women of color leaders in higher education. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19(4) 393-406. Pillow, Wanda (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196. Pinar, William F. (2004). What is curriculum theory?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reeves, Thomas C. & Reeves, Patricia M. (2015). Educational technology research in a VUCA world. Educational Technology, 55(2), 26-30. Richardson, Laurel & St. Pierre, Elizabeth A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.959-978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rogoff, Irit (2007 [2006]). Academy as potentiality, https://www.raggeduniversity.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Rogoff-academy-as-Potentiality.pdf [Date of Access: May 4, 2020]. FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/